Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />2.4 SITE Q: PAGES Q151 - Q-229 <br /> <br />Section A: Project Description <br /> <br />No comments. <br /> <br />Section B: Neighboring Environmental Sites <br /> <br />No comments. <br /> <br />Section C: Regional Geology <br /> <br />On p. Q-162 the till unit was described as continuous across the site and tapered to <br />approximately 10 feet in thickness along the site's southern limit. Figure Q.E. 13 <br />however shows the till to be absent. This condition, in effect, forms a "sump" on <br />site directly connecting the upper and lower sand units. The presence of such a <br />condition needs to be more completely addressed. <br /> <br />Section D: Regional Hydrogeolo~ <br /> <br />1. On pages Q-169 to Q-175, as with the other two sites, the presentation and <br /> application of data dealing with the area well search and aquifer usage has the <br /> potential to grossly underestimate shallow aquifer usage. The combined response <br /> from both the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) and mail survey only resulted in <br /> a 37% return of usable data. It is very poss~le that a large percentage of the <br /> unreported/unregistered wells are placed in the water table aquifer. If half of the <br /> unreported wells were indeed utilizing the shallow drift water table, the resultant <br /> shallow aquifer usage would increase to 34% as compared with the reported value <br /> of 8%. The existing aquifer usage percentages must therefore be used with care <br /> due to the lack of relative extensive level of uncertainties. <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br /> <br />